MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132329161 · doi:10.1086/506354

Prospective, Randomized Inpatient Study of Oral Metronidazole versus Oral Metronidazole and Rifampin for Treatment of Primary Episode of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>–Associated Diarrhea

2006· article· en· W2132329161 on OpenAlexaff
Danny D Lagrotteria, Serena Holmes, Marek Smieja, Fiona Smaill, Christine U. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetronidazoleMedicineClostridium difficileDiarrheaAntibioticsInternal medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To date, no randomized trial to address the use of adjunctive rifampin in addition to metronidazole for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea has been reported. Rifampin has excellent in vitro activity against C. difficile and penetrates into cellular materials where the organisms may persist. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study of 39 patients that compared therapy with metronidazole alone versus therapy with metronidazole and rifampin for 10 days to treat laboratory-confirmed primary episode C. difficile-associated diarrhea. Twenty patients were randomly assigned to the metronidazole group, and 19 were randomly assigned to the metronidazole and rifampin group. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis using the 2-tailed Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. RESULTS: Adjunctive rifampin treatment for 10 days, compared with treatment with metronidazole alone for 10 days, was associated with a similar median time to symptom improvement (9.0 days vs. 6.5 days; P=.74), a similar median time to first relapse (26 days vs. 16 days; P=.23), a similar proportion of patients with relapse by study day 40 (42% vs. 38%; P=1.0), and a similar proportion of patients experiencing nonfatal adverse events (37% vs. 40%; P=.55). There were a significantly higher number of deaths in the metronidazole and rifampin group, compared with the metronidazole group (6 of 19 patients vs. 1 of 20 patients; P=.04), but there were fewer laboratory-confirmed relapses by study day 40 (2 vs. 4; P=.66). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is no role for routine rifampin as an adjunct to treatment with metronidazole for hospitalized patients with C. difficile-associated diarrhea. The cure rates for both treatment groups remain unacceptably low, and better treatments are urgently needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations118
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207